If a "legal" appeal took place now, it could be decided by a different judge who could vacate Walker's decision with a different conclusion.

Keep in mind, Walker's decision, that a ban on SSM violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, runs contrary to Baker v. Nelson, in that SCOTUS dismissed an appeal on exactly that grounds "for want of a substantial federal question".

Nothing that happened today puts a dent in the validity of Baker v. Nelson.

And, as you've pointed out multiple times, you aren't qualified to give an opinion on whether or not something is constitutional.

I'm not giving an opinion on whether anything is Constitutional.

I'm pointing out what SCOTUS has said about Constitutionality of SSM. It's their opinion.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 5:15:00 PM (view original):Yes. That's not an interpretation of constitutionality.

Do you think that Walker's ruling can coexist with Baker v Nelson?

I don't know, I've never read Baker. And I doubt you've read the entire thing either. Considering that you didn't want to give an opinion on the relatively short 10th amendment because you aren't qualified, I can't see how you could consider yourself qualified to compare to decisions that may or may not run contrary to each other.

I read a synopsis of Baker, which said that the case was dismissed because SCOTUS said it was not a federal issue, and therefore the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment did not apply. Which is clearly is contradictory to Walker. Even a fifth grader should be able to understand that.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 5:51:00 PM (view original):I read a synopsis of Baker, which said that the case was dismissed because SCOTUS said it was not a federal issue, and therefore the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment did not apply. Which is clearly is contradictory to Walker. Even a fifth grader should be able to understand that.

Apparently, I know more about it that you do.

I think Walker may have addressed Baker in a pre-trial motion for summary judgement.

So, apparently, either you're dumber than a fifth grader or it isn't as cut and dry as you are making it out to be.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 6:12:00 PM (view original):Anything Walker may have said or done is certainly tainted by his appearance of a conflict of interest. We already had this discussion.

Are you now asserting that it's appropriate for a lower court to overrule SCOTUS?

Nope, I'm saying that neither of us is qualified to determine whether or not Baker was binding over Perry. Walker addressed the argument and ruled that it wasn't.

Also, neither one of us can say with any confidence that Walker was biased and unable to put aside his personal feelings.

But we do know that a federal appellate court reviewed his decision and didnt overturn it, based on Baker or anything else.

Apparently you know more about Constitutional law than both a District Court judge and a panel of Federal Judges. Yet you still don't consider yourself qualified to give an opinion on the constitutionality of DOMA.